I agree, it doesn't really seem like much time was spend on this, it would be great if it happened but ULA has expressed no interest for doing their own missions like SpaceX has.

Both companies are doing the thing that companies in this business have done since before Sputnik. They are offering ideas, concepts, to show the government what they think is possible. It is a shopping list. None of it happens unless it is funded. That includes SpaceX.

I agree, it doesn't really seem like much time was spend on this, it would be great if it happened but ULA has expressed no interest for doing their own missions like SpaceX has.

Both companies are doing the thing that companies in this business have done since before Sputnik. They are offering ideas, concepts, to show the government what they think is possible. It is a shopping list. None of it happens unless it is funded. That includes SpaceX.

You do realize where the money comes from, right? Vulcan is being developed to launch government payloads, primarily. So is Falcon Heavy, which is SpaceX's design to compete for EELV Medium-Plus and Heavy payloads.

You do realize where the money comes from, right? Vulcan is being developed to launch government payloads, primarily. So is Falcon Heavy, which is SpaceX's design to compete for EELV Medium-Plus and Heavy payloads.

SpaceX, Blue and ULA are investing in Falcon Heavy, BE-4 and Vulcan with hopes of winning government business in the future, but they have no signed contracts and hence no guarantee of future business. This is a nice improvement over the usual industry habits of Rocketdyne and ULA, where investments are only made after a government contract is signed.

You do realize where the money comes from, right? Vulcan is being developed to launch government payloads, primarily. So is Falcon Heavy, which is SpaceX's design to compete for EELV Medium-Plus and Heavy payloads.

No, Falcon Heavy is designed for a variety of markets, which includes the government but also the larger GEO comsats that are too big for Falcon 9, and also as a part of SpaceX's Mars plans. Falcon Heavy also gives the margin to make a reusable upper stage in the future. And Raptor is being developed solely for SpaceX Mars plans.

For ULA, rockets are a way to earn money. For SpaceX, earning money is a way to build its own rockets.

There hasn't been a lot of detail in these infographics, and as people have pointed out I agree that the effort put into this seems to be purely for marketing.That being said I think this is great to see from ULA, the more we see promotional material from private companies getting out there the better IMO. There is still this perception in the public that NASA should be designing and building their own rockets. I like to think that marketing like this helps shift peoples views to view look to the private market to take on this capability and free up NASA to do the actual exploration missions.

ULA have been developing their IVF system and in orbit refuel for a few years now. They were hoping NASA would pay for flight testing and maybe fuel depots. The good news ULA seem to be willing to pay for itthemselves, still need a willing customer's mission to flight test these new technologies.

If ULA can prove in orbit refueling a storage they will automatically become leaders in this technology.

ULA have been developing their IVF system and in orbit refuel for a few years now. They were hoping NASA would pay for flight testing and maybe fuel depots. The good news ULA seem to be willing to pay for itthemselves, still need a willing customer's mission to flight test these new technologies.

If ULA can prove in orbit refueling a storage they will automatically become leaders in this technology.

One of their main competitors appears to be working on the same. It's wonderful to see ULA actively working towards innovations such as this one.

Edit/Lar: please attach large images, do not embed them as it breaks viewing for others. Feel free to correct this by attaching and removing this edit notice.. Thanks!

Interesting for me to see prop storage, I had asked the following question to Tory Bruno in one of his Reddit AMA's: "Has there been any ongoing efforts by ULA to develop propellant depots since the 2008 study? Would ULA consider taking on the cost and risk of developing this tech in order to foster growth of the commercial market or opening up mission options for government agencies? (If you build it they will come?)"

Quote

We continue to study the feasibility and utility. If a demand presents, we'll look at it

What entities is ULA fantasizing will spend $600B more each year in 15 years than they do now? That's 30 times NASA's budget!

It's not so much a question of 'who will spend' but 'who will pay for what products and services'. The current global space economy has very clear revenue sources and is growing at a rate of around 5% a year on average, in recent decade. Only small segments are growing faster than that.

Nothing in this particular ULA fantasy points to any new services or products which would budge this growth rate suddenly.

Most of that diagram is about better ways to deliver services for NASA-like organizations, and NASA won't get anything close to a $600B budget unless a large asteroid is discovered on a collision course with Earth. The only part of that diagram with potential for significant new money is LEO tourism. It seems beyond implausible that LEO tourism would in 15 years be bigger than the GDP of Sweden and almost as big as the GDP of the state of Florida.

Most of that diagram is about better ways to deliver services for NASA-like organizations, and NASA won't get anything close to a $600B budget unless a large asteroid is discovered on a collision course with Earth. The only part of that diagram with potential for significant new money is LEO tourism. It seems beyond implausible that LEO tourism would in 15 years be bigger than the GDP of Sweden and almost as big as the GDP of the state of Florida.

4 years ago, Tauri Group's most optimistic space tourism scenarios projected $1.6 billion revenues for space tourism, with constrained scenario netting a $300M - both numbers spread over 10 years. Go back a couple years and you'll find other market studies predicting even larger numbers.The numbers as they stand are pretty much big fat zero, with no signs of change.

Meanwhile, both SIA State of Satellite Industry report and The Space Report by Space Foundation show reliable steady growth numbers, a couple percent year on year. If anything, global space industry growth - which is the $300B number ULA started with, is tapering off.

Note that lions share of the existing ~$300B number is of course in satellite services and supporting ground equipment, which is mostly broadcast TV plus fixed satellite services. Nobody in this segment predicts rapid growth.